'<^^ * O ^ ' ^ 










A 



^r 















O M 






















o5°<v 









4^ / 







Vo V /r. , 



..-e.^ ^*>^:' V..' .c^E^'- "^_./ ^*>a^:^\..^' ov 



SPEECH 



MR. 'strong, of PENNSYLVANIA, 



ON 



THE MEXICxiN WAR. 



Delivered ii» thz House of Representativbf, Makch 4, 1848. 

4 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED BY JOHN T. TOWERS. 

1848. 



SPEECH. 



Mr. CiiAiriMAN: The bill now under consideration, though entitled 
a bill to siipply deficiencies, in fact makes provi^sioii for the prosecniion. 
of ihff evi.-5tui;^ war Uiitil (he 1st of July neKt. Ii iheiefore invites us to 
a consideration of i.he policy which should be adopted in the future con- 
duct of our niilitaiy operations. It points onwaril to the events beforo 
us, and calls our attention from the past to tlie period yet in the future. 
If we were to jii^lge from an examination of the course which debate 
lias taken in this committee, we might well conclude that the object for 
which we are assembled, is to legislate for the past. Many weeks have 
been spent in the indulgence of a spirit of f mlt-finding with the chief 
K.veciiiive, in the impugnment of his iiioiives, and censure of iiis acts. 
lii ilie ardor of pariisati discussion, gentlemen seem to have forgotten the 
existence of any other period than ihe '-days gone by." But however 
untnindfn! we may be of it, tho present only is oms. it is for the present 
and the future that we ate called upon to act. ^^hey, and they o/?,/y, can be 
adecied by any course of policy which we may adopt. We are in a slate 
of war. It should be, and doubtless is, the object of every member of 
this commitiee, to resiore lo liie country the inestimable blessin^j-s of 
pe.iee, so soon as it can be done with honor and with justice. How this 
is to he eiferied by the imptiia ion to the President of falsehood, of un- 
constitutional ads, of covert designs, and dishonest moti\ es, I am at a 
loss to discover. Such would not be the course which we should pur- 
sue in regaid to other thinj/s. If my property were in (lames, sad indeed 
woidd be my folly, should I fold my arms and refuse to make any effort 
to e\tii!gnieli them, until I had relieved my feelings bv denouncing the 
incendiary, however just thatdenmicianon might be. Even if there have 
beeii errors in the past, the time fur imiuiry is not now. When the <Tieat 
abject which we have in view shall have been accomplished, and peace 
once tnore reign within all ourborders,ihe time forscruiiny will have come 
and then, sir, it: will not only be timely, but it cannot retard ifie atfainment 
of (he obji^ct at wliich we aim. I shall not, therefore, Mr. Chairnian 
consu ne the time of the committee by adverting to any of the accusa- 
tions which have been made against tlie President. It. will, indeed, be- 
come nece-sary for nv^ to refer to some past events, for a knowledo-e of 
(hem is essential to guide us in the future. My great object is to inquire 
what should hereafter be our course. 

A fimdamenial question which meets us at the outset, and without the 
determination of which we caniiot act understandingly, is this: Is //is 
v)ar in wldcli we are invnlvexl, a just one upon, our side 7 » Because if it 
is not jhen the path is plain before us. We shouUI retrace our steps 
give np the conq'tcsts winch we have already made, abandon the terri- 
tory now in our f)0ssessinn, and tender indemnity to Mexico for the 
wrongs wliich we have inflicted upon her. Sir, I want no part in the 
prosecution of an unjust war. Dnt if, on the oilier hand, o(ns is the side 
of light, the very justice of our cause, and the injuries which we have 



received in maintaining it, give us rights which we may and ought to 
enforce, 

I shall Iheiefoie briefly inquire which of the two contending par- 
ties, the United States and Mexico, hath its quarrel just. And, sir, 
this seems to he hardly debatable ground. We upon this side of the 
Hull have no doubt in regard to it, and gentlensen upon the other side 
have, all along the progress of the war, virtually admitted that the right 
is with us. Even the famed amendment to the resolution passed by 
them early in the session, whilst ir dei^ounced the war as having been 
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President, catefully 
avoided denying its justice. How could it have been otherwise ? How 
could gentlemen who doubted the justice of the war, have voted appro- 
priations for its prosecution 7 Aid thus rendered is no equivocal ac- 
knowledgment of its rightfulness. I speak not now of the first act which 
acknowledged the existence of the war. I do not attach the same im- 
portance to that which many do, but tliere is no anVoiguily in the lan- 
guage of the later appropriation?. Nor do I recollect that, in the whole 
coiuse of this debate, protracted as it has been, any member of the Whig 
parly has expressed a doubt as to the justice of our cause in this contro- 
versy, until within a short time past. The honorable gontleman from 
Ohio, (Mr. Fisjieu,) was the first. He has been followed by two or 
three others. 

But, sir, I choose to look beyond the opinions of both parties, as ex- 
pressed in this House, as to the commencement of the war. It is obvi- 
ous that a complete examination of the subject would also require a view 
of the causes of complaint which we had against Mexico, before the slate 
of war had existence 1 have not time, however, for a discussion so ex- 
tended. Asid here, sir, I desire to be understood to use the phrase 
" commencemf nt of the war," not as referring to the beginning of hostil- 
ities, but to the •'•sttatus bdli''' itself. It is clear that one may exist with- 
out the other. If a declaration of war be made between two nations, 
they are imm.cdiately in a stale of roar, before a blow has been given. 
And so those belligerent nations, whose armies have gone into winter 
quarters, and await the dawning of spring to renew the struggle, arc still 
at war. So, on the other hand, hostilities may exist, and still the nations 
be at peace. The attack upon the Caroline, by a deiaclnnent of the 
British army, during the late Canada troubles, and the collision of the 
Little Belt and Chesapeake, unsanctiotsed by the British Government, 
are complete illustrations. My inquiry, therefore, is, hovj a state of war 
teas brought into existence betiveen the United States and Mexico^ 
At the time when the joint resolutions, providing for the annexation of 
Texas, were under consideration, distinguished gentlemen upon the 
other side, avowed that such annexation was ^- ipso facto'- war; that it 
exchanged the amicable relations then existing between us and Mexico, 
into a state of war. If they were then correct, (and the honorable gentle- 
man from New York, who addressed the committee a few days since, [Mr, 
DuER.,] endorses that averment.) it needed no formal declaration to create 
a slate of war between the United States and Mexico ; nothing but the 
passage of the resolutions, or at least the consummation of the act of an- 
nexation. A declaration of war is not necessary by both parties. If 
France were to declare v/ar against this country, a state of war would 



exist. No more would be required, and the President, wiiliout the assent 
of Congress, might move the army, though the consequences of that 
movement should be coUision. This will not be denied. Nor is any 
formal declaration necessary. A declaration of war is nothing more than 
a public avowal that war exists. The only ol)ject is notice ; notice to 
the foreign foe that he may offer satisfaction, and notice to the subjectsof 
the war-declaring power, that they may remove their property from the 
reach of the enemy, and cease to trade or hold intercourse widi them. 
The practice is borrowed from the Romans, who, after having declared 
war in their Senate, and thus given notice at home, sent a herald to the 
confines of the enemy's territory to give notice there. Well, sir, the 
annexation resolutions became a lav^^ ; Texas was annexed'; she took 
shelter under our Constitution, merged her nationality into ours, and be- 
came an integral part of this great confederacy. Now, so far as gentle- 
men on the other side have expressed the opinions to which I have re- 
ferred, they are estopped from averring that any thing else than the an- 
nexation of Texas was the cause or the period of the con\mencement of 
the state ofwai\ whatever they may think of the beginning of ho<(iilities. 
Bui Mexico has also closed her month. She has uniformly taken the 
same ground, and her acts have been consistent with her declarations. 
She never pretended that the order of tiie I3lh January, 1S4G, nor even 
the marcb of General Taylor to the Rio Grande, was the commencement 
of the war, or even of hostilities. That is all an afier-thought — an Ameri- 
can defence of Mexico, which she has never adopted. She uniformly 
claimed the vvhole of Texas up to the Sabine — never made any dis- 
tinction in her claims between the territory east, and that west of the 
river Nueces. But I turn to her public (declarations. Notwithstanding 
her long silence in regard to her claims upon Texas, the moment annex- 
ation tothis country began to be publicly discussed, she assumed an of- 
fensive attitude. On the 23d of August, A. D., 1843, her Minister of 
Foreign Affidrs announced to oiir Minister in Mexico that — 

" The Mexican Government will consider equivaleni. tn a declaration nfvinr against 
the Mexican. R'pubU'-, the passage of an aci for the incorporaiing of Texas into 
the terriiory of the United States ; llv certainty of ih". fact bein^ svfficicnt for the 
prnc.limation of war, leaving to the civilized world to determine in regard to the jus- 
tice of the ilexican nation, in a struirg'e which it has been so far from provoking." 

What is this but notice that a stale of war wjuld exist between the 
two nations immediately after and consequent upon the passage of such 
an ac! ? On the 3d of Noveruber following, Gen. Almonte, the Mexi- 
can Minister to this country, made the following communication to our 
Government: 

"Such a measure, (the annexation of Texas,) if carried into effect, cannot be 
considered by Mexico in any other aspect than as direct aggression. * * * And 
he (Almonte) moreover declares, by express order of his Government, that oq 
sanction bein^ given by the Executive of the Union to the incorporating of Texas 
into ths United Siates, he will consider Ids mission ended, seeing that, as the Sec- 
retary of Slate wM have learned, the Mexican Government is resolved to declare 
war as soon as it receives information of that fact." 

And B')canegra afterwards, in a circular addressed to foreign powers, 
calls the act providing for the annexation of Texas " a declaration of 
war between the two nations." These are official communications ad- 
dressed by Mexico to the United States. What are they all but acontin- 



gent declaralion of war by Mexico, a declaration dependent upon a contin- 
gency wliich afierwards linppened ? And how can Mexico s;<y, ihat. as 
soon as nunexaiion was completed a stale of war did noi exi.-l? She 
never did say so. Yet the honorable gcruleman fiom New York, (Mr. 
DuER,) while lie concedes the existence of warlike relaiions, asserts that 
Mexico elected peace. This he infers from her sul)>equent agrceinent 
to receive a commissioner to make propositions for the adjusiment. of 
diflicnities. But, where does the gentlenian le;irn that stich consent, or 
even the reception of such an ao;cn(, is inconsistent with ihe coiitinued 
exisietice of a state of war? 1 tnke issne with him i;pon this as^serlion, 
that Mexico elected peace. So far from it has she been, that she never 
disavowed these official declarations made to our Goveimnent, but re- 
peated and reiterated them again and again, and persisted in the assertion 
of lier right to the whole of 'i'exas. On the l2ili of June, A. D., 1844, 
Santa Anna, then President of Mexico, issued a proclamation, in wliicli 
lie declared — 

" That Mexico was resolved again to undertake the campaign against Texas, for 
which he held in readiness a large army." 

On the 6th of March, A. D., 1845, after the final passr.ge of the an- 
nexnlion resolutions, Almonte, in an address to this Government, denomi- 
Bates it " an act of aagression the most unjust which can be found record- 
ed in (he annals of history, namely, lhat of des|!oiling a friendly uution 
like Mexico of a considerable portion of her territory." Pie then de- 
manded his passports and left. All amicable relations were hioken off 
by the Mexican Govermnent. On the 4ih of June, A. D., 1845, Gene- 
ral ITcrrera, who had then become the Chief Executive, issued a piocla- 
mation, "that the law of the United Slates in reference to the annexa- 
tion of Texas, does in no wise destroy the rights which Mexico has, and 
will enforce upon that department." But still more. About one m.onth 
later, on the 12di of Jnly, A. D., I845, the following orders were issued 
by tiie Mexican Government : 

" OrFiCE OF War and Makjnk, 

" Section rf Operations. 

" The United States have consummated the perfidy against Mexico hy sanction- 
ing the decree whicli declares the annexation of the department of 'I'cxas to that 
republic 'j'he inju-lice of that usurpation is apparent, and Mexico cannot tolerate 
such a grave injury without making an effort to prove to iiie United Slates the pos- 
sibility of her ability to cause her rights to he respected. With this object, the 
Supreme- Government has resolved upon a declaration of war against tiiat Power, 
seeing that our forbearance, instead of being r^'ceived as a proof of our friendly dis- 
position, has been interpreted into an acknowledged impossibility on our part to 
carry on a successful war. 

'•^uch an error, on the part of the United States, will he advantageous to 
Mexico, because, suddenly abandoning iis pacitic atti;ude, it will to morrow com- 
municate to Congress the declaration of war, and excite the patriotism of its citi- 
zens to sustain the dignity oi the nation and the integrity of its territory, now 
t-eacherously attacked, in utter disregard of all guaranties recognized in this en- 
lightened asre. 

" You will readily appreciate the importance of this subject and the necessity of 
preparing the troops under your command to march towards any point which may 
require protection against these most unjust aggressions. lam direiMed by the pro- 
visional President to enjoin you, as general-incliief of your division, and as a citi- 
•zen of this republic, to hold yourself in renJiness to repel those who seek the 
iruin of Mexico. The Government is occupied in covering the deficient points on 



-the fionliers, nnd incollectinjr ihe necessary means, so that nothing may be wanting 
10 those \vl)ose aiory it will be lo defend the sacred rights of their country. 

" I have the houur lo coimnunicate lor your intelligence, and to direct your con- 
duct. GARCIA CUNDE. 

" God and liberty ! Mcxtco, July 12, 1845." 

Notice of the exisienoc of war lutd, anterior to that time, been given 
to the United Stales. This was notice lo the Mexican people. At ihia 
time, Geneial Taylor was not even at Corpus Chii.sti. Does this look 
like an election of peace? No, sir. It is but confirmation of what she 
had before declared. True, the United Siates chose not thus to rejrard it. 
'We did not lake up the jjlove thus thrown down. But I am speaking 
otily of the posiiiou which Mexico assiuned. True, she did not com- 
mence liostiiiiies al once. SJ^e probably delayed with the lingering? hope 
that, though provision had been made for it, the annexation of Texas- 
would ne^^r be consummated. The adminislraiion of Herrera was 
however ovcithiowti, and the avowed cause of the revolution which 
displaced hiin was, (hat his measures were not sufficienily hostile against 
the Utiited Slates. Parcdes succeeded (o the Presidency, pledged to a 
still more ofTensive policy towards this Government. Shortly after his 
accession, he ptiblished a inanilesto exphuialory of his purposes. 'I'his 
.paper is relied upon and cited as proof titat Mexico chose not to consider 
the annexation of Texas as producing a stale of war. 

The honorable gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Collamer,) to whos& 
speech I listened, and which I have since read wiih nuich interest^ 
urged this argument with great force, ll is difficult liowever to perceive 
how such a manifesto, corresponding as it does with one of our Presiden- 
tial inaugural addresses, can be considered as a retraxit of the formal 
declarations before tliat time made to the United Siates Government. It 
v.'as no act, no declaration of Mexico ; and it it had been, it was certain- 
ly no disavowal of her antecedent acts, only a domestic "document of 
which we could not be supposed to have even knowledge. But the 
manifesto itself, if examined, will be found to be as hostile in its teriTis 
as any of the papers to which I have already alluded. True, Paredes 
eays he has not tlie power lo declare war, though Ilerreia, on the 12ih of 
July preceeding, had claitncd it. True, he declared that Mexico had 
notcommltied and would not commit ag^-ressions upon the United States, 
would only repel force by force, but he also declared that the annexation 
of Texas was aggression, and that was lo be repelled by force. Let me 
advert to some extracts from this manifesio : 

" On resuming in the beginning of the year the heavy responsibility of guiding 
the destinies of the nntion during a short period, I determined resolutely to change 
lis policy front the weak and pernicious system of temporising, which has beea 
observed in regard to the Uniied States of America, notwithstanding the perfidy 
with which titat (government ])repared for the occupation ol Texas. * * * and 
ihe insidious act by which it incorporated one of our departments with its own con- 
federacy. * * * The MexiciuiGovernmenl liaving been despoiled ofthe rich and 
exietisive territory of Texas, wh ch has always belonged to her in virtue of acts 
of the supreme authority of the neighboring republic, and tliis latter having shown 
i^'B di>po>^i!ion to appropriate to itself some of our frontier departments; the Mex- 
' !iean nation is bound to jjfotest, has protested, and I now proie-t in her name, thai we 
will never recognise the American banner floating on the soil ol Texas; that we will 
defend our invaded territory ; and that we will never sutler new conquests to be 
made, or new usurpations on the part of the United Stales ot America. * * * 
' '1 have not the right to declare war. It is^ for the august Congress of the nation, as 



soon as they assemble, to take into consideration all the consequences of the con- 
flict in which we are involved." He also speaks of the absurdity of supposing 
" that the relations between the two republics had not suffered any disturbance by 
the definite act of the annexation of Texas." 

This is certainly a singular mode of converting a stale of war into 
one of peace. This manifesto was issued in April, 1846. Texas had 
then been admitted as a Slate into this Union. The time for temporizing 
had past, that for hostilities had come. Even then Paredes had assem- 
bled a large army on the Rio Grande, under the assertion of a right to 
the whole of Texas ; and the destination of (hat army, as avowed in the 
Mexican journals, was (o plant their national flag upon the west bank 
of the Sabine. No matter what her declarations were, Mexico must be 
supposed to have designed what her acts indicated. Now, sir, in such 
circumstances, was there anything unjust towards Mexico in our taking 
her at her word ? in believing that when she spoke of art existing stale 
of war between the two Republics, and threatened invasion, she "meant 
■what she said ? And how can Mexico assign any other cause or period 
for the commencement of the war, than that she has always assigned, 
the annexation of Texas? But the estoppel of Mexico will be still more 
apparent if we follow her a few days longer. On the 18th of April, 
A. D, 184t3, at about the same time with the publication of his 
manifesto, and without any otlier declaration of war than that v^hich 
Mexico had before made in the manner which I have described, 
Paredes ordered hostilities to be commenced. He wrote to Gen. Arista, 
then in command of the army of the north, the army of invasion, that 
it was "indispensable that hostiliies should be commenced," and orders 
him to "take the initiative." Now either he then knew of the march of 
General Taylor from Corpus Christi to tlie Rio Grande, or he did not; 
if hedidj.then in his estimation that march vt^as no act of hostilities, for 
they were yet to be commenced — not the "initiative," for that was yet 
to be taken ; if he did not, then ihe march had nothing to do with the 
^commencement of the war, or of hostilities. Am I not warranted, then, 
in asserting that Mexico has closed her mouth, and forever debarred her- 
self from alleging that her own choice did not produce the state'of war, 
and that she had any just cause for assuming the position which she did, 
imless her justification is to be found in thearyiexation of Texas? And 
if by the position in which .she placed herself, by the declarations she 
made, and by her military movements all corresponding, she induced 
us to anticipate an attack, (which is however denied,) was not our course 
equally consistent with right, as with prudence? 

Thus far, Mr. Chairman, I iiave discussed the question as between 
the two belligerent nations; I have not adverted to the course of our 
Chief Executive. That is wholly immaterial to the investigation of the 
justice of our cause in the struggle between the United States and Mex- 
ico. It is wholly a domestic affair, a question between the people of 
this country and their agent. The honorable gentleman from Ohio, 
•who addressed the committee some lime since, (Mr. Fisfieu,) and who, 
I think^ was the first to declare our cause unjust, arrived at his conclu- 
sion by a most singular course of reasoning. Looking at the acts of the 
President, through the distorting medium of partisan feeling, he concludes 
in the language of the famous amendment, that the war was unneceS' 



< 19 

sarily and unconstitutionally begun by liim, and therefore it is unjust. 
A more palpable ftllacy never existed. If ibe gentleman could prove, 
what can never be done, that the course of the Ptesident was wholly in- 
defensible, (hat he unnecessarily and unconstituiionally began the war^ 
he would not have advanced one step towards establishing iis injustice. 
If the order of the 13th of January, ISKi, were notoriously in ihe face 
of a constituiional provision, our cause might still be riijht. Suppose 
that, without the least provocation, France should land an invading army 
upon the coast of South Carolina, and the President, without the assent; 
of Congress, should borrow money on thefailhof the Government, and leav- 
ing our troops unemployed, should raise a new army to repel the invader, 
his acts would be unnecessary and unconstitutional, but who would say 
we were unjust in our conflict with France? 

But 1 return to the question mor;; immediately before us. Is the de- 
fence of Mexico tenable? Is ii any jusiilicaiion to her for placing the 
two countries in a slate of war, and for assuming a position and adopting 
a course which ultimately and inevitably led to actual collision ? Texas 
was annexed ; I shall not stop to discuss the constitutionality or expedi- 
ency of that measure. In regard to that, there always has been, and 
still is, a difleience of opinion. But the deed u'as done, Texas became 
one with us, and with us she will ever remain. No day dreamer ever 
contemplates a future separation. Yet ii is no hard task to show that 
this was no valid reason for complaint on the part of Mexico,' much less 
a justification for a declaration of war, or for her giving notice of its ex- 
istence, which is equivalent to a declaration. Years had she occupied 
in useless efforts to reduce Texas to subjection, but she had striven in 
vain. And, sir, it may well be doubted whether those efi'oris were not 
all unjustifiable aggiession. To the present Mexican Government, Texas 
never owed allegiance. She had subiuiited to the Constitution of 1824, 
and to that she remained loyal while it existed. But when that was 
overthrown, in 1835, she owed no allegiance to any new government 
built upon its ruins. Should the United States Constitution be des- 
troyed, and a monarchy take its place, without the consent of Pennsyl- 
vania, what would be said of an attempt to reduce that State to its do- 
minion ? But however this may be, all the efforts of Mexico to subju- 
gate Texas ended in complete discomfiture. Her armies were dispersed, 
her Chief Executive and military officer captured, and (powerless (o 
continue the war) for seven years she remained inactive, making no fur- 
ther attempt at subjugation ; and probably she never would have made 
another trial, had not annexation been proposed. Meanwhile Great Bri- 
tain, France, and the United Slates had acknowledged the independent 
existence of Texas, and wiih it her right to form alliances, offensive and 
defensive, and to dispose of herself as she thought proper. What then 
were the rights of Mexico ? Sir, she hid no right to say (hat the sword 
should devour forever. Who does not remember the wide spread con- 
denmaiion bestowed upon Spain for her obstinate perseverance in as- 
serting her claims upon Mexico and the South American republics ? But 
I am needlessly sustaining what is generally admitted. If confirmation 
were necessary, I might appeal to a distinguished Senator from Massa- 
chusetts, (Mr. WEBsrER,) who, after having opposed (he annexation of 
Texas, denied that it was any just cause of offence to Mexico. Well, if 



10 

it was no<, (he only justiScntion whicii she has ever set up for ihns plac- 
ing ihe two iiiitioiis in a state of war, for maintainif)g so long a hostile 
posiiion, and for pursniii£f a course which precipitiUt'd hosdliiits, is 
swepi Crom heneatli her net. The injustice of (he war is //efs, the jns- 
Uce ours ; for a war CJumot be iinjiisi on hoih sides in its couuneiice- 
iiieiii, though iiidefensiliic acts nmy he coiuiuiited by each party in its 
prosecniion. (Yaitei, hook 3, fcc. 39.) 

1 come now to the second object, which I have proposed to myself. 
If, by the injustice of Mexico, we have been snl>jecied to the ex'penses 
and losses aiiendant npon a war, we have a moral and an acktiowletlged 
rigiit to i;tdcmiiity, to reitijbnrsenient of the cost, to satisfaction lor ante- 
cedent itiJLiries, and to socarity agidiist iliiure aggression. Tiiis was 
early avowed by the President as the great oiiject to be attained in the 
contest. Ill his annual niessage to the tweiny-niiiih Congress, at its 
second session, he said : " the Wiir will be proseciUed with a view to obtain 
■an honorable peace, and thereby secnre ample indenmity for the expen- 
penses of the war." This is strictly in accoidance with the laws of na- 
tions. (Vaitel, book 3, 28 and 130.) 1 shall say nothing of the extent 
to which our claisns for indemniiy sliould he exacted. There is no 
earthly tribunal which can adjudicate upon the dis; tiles of ntrions, or 
determine tlie extent of their nglits. In every war, that must be left to 
the enlightened sen^e of justice ^of the victorious party. I would that 
such may be (he principles by which our claims upon Mexico may be 
settled — justice to ourselves, justice, even magnanimity, towaids IMexico. 
As with individuals so it is with nations, " it is better to suffer tlian to do 
wrong." I aj)preciatc, too, the trsmcndous evils which the coniinuance 
of war imposes, even upon the conqiiering natioti. 1 am not not insen- 
sible to the loss of life. The bones of many of my feilow-townsmen 
lie in Mexican graves. I appreciate the distress of families, the accumu- 
hition of national debt, the increased burden of taxes, the derangement 
of trade, and, more than all, the deep and lasting injury to public morals. 
I would avert these evils from the count ly so soon as it may he with 
honor and with justice. 

But it has been argued, that indemnity cannot be ohtained, neither in 
money, nor in territory, nor in any odier way. Pecuniary indemni(y is 
not, indeed, within the power of Mexico. But I dissent from the propo- 
sition, that it cannot be seemed in territory. The argtiment of the Imn- 
orable gentleman from Vermont, to whose able speech I have already 
alluded, was, that the lands in Mexico have all been sold, and are now in 
the hands of private owners ; and as we do not make war upon private in- 
<lividnals, only upon the Governtnent, therefore, the acquisition of teiritoiy 
would give us no ownership of land which could be sold, and with the 
proceeds of which our treasury might be replenished. I shall not differ 
with him ill this position. I am inclined to think (hat there is very little 
unappiopriated land in Mexico, and certainly none other can be sold. 
All this may be granted, and it by no means follows that indeirmily may 
not be secured in the acquisition of territory. That is a very partial 
view of what is intended by the term indemnity. The President, though 
h.e has recommended the retention of New Mexico and the Californias, 
has never said that it was for the purpose of raising money from the sales 
of land. That is the least of all the benefits to be derivedfrom territo- 



11 

rial enlargernenf. But is the ncqnisiiion of sovereiofniy noiiiing — that 
soveieigniy which shall place in the hands of our Goveirunent, all ihe 
revenues of the acquired lerriiory, all iis eminent domain, and the con- 
trol of all iis rivers and haibors and public highways? .Sir, sovereio^n- 
ty, and sovereignty alone, is whai, in all modern limes, has been obtained 
for indemnity, and has ever been considered of priceless value. History 
is full of siicli ca?es. For hundreds of years indemnity in the feesinrple 
of land has been impossible in Europe. Mere sovereignty over North- 
ern Mexico would bring with it the right of direct and indirect taxation, 
open to us a new and wide market for our agricultural and manufactured 
production:^, woidd enlarge our commercial privileges, and give us the 
untold advantage of the possession of the bay of tSan Fr;n)cisco, and 
other harbors on the Pacific ocean. Suppose that (he fee simple of not 
one acre of land, and only simple sovereignty had been obtained by the 
convention with France of lSl)3, would not Louisianahave been cheaply 
purchased? ])id not the free navigation of the Mississippi, and the un- 
disturbed control of its month, add infinitely more to our national wealth 
than all the cost of Louisiana? I do not say that New Mexico and the 
Californias would be equally valuable, but that certainly is an erroneous 
view which does not look beyond the fee siinple of the lantl. which can 
discern no value except in the proceeds of its sales. And even if all the 
land in Northern Mexico he in the hands of private owners, liow can it 
be gravely argued, that it is beyond being the means of indenmity to us? 

The Chairman of the Connnittee on Foieign Relations has told us of 
its barren rocks and hills, and colored deep his picture. 1 have not the 
time to follow, him. All that he has said might with equal propriety, 
have been spoken of his own na ive Neu^ England two huudred years ago. 

But the honorable geiiiieman from Vermont, among other objections 
to the acquisiiion of lerriiory, lias urged that, if we conrpier Mexico, we 
are bound to pay her debts. How this migh.t be, if the whole of Mexico 
were conquered and retained, it is not liecessary to inquire. No such 
thing is proposed. But I am utterly unable to perceive any co- 
gency in the argument upon which this doctrine is founded, as applied 
to the acquisition of a part; and indeed 1 doubt whether it be correct in 
any case, when either a part or the whole of a coimtry is acquiied 
by conquest or treaty, as a just indemnity. If we obtain any part of 
Mexico, it will be as a compensation for injuries received, as paytnent of 
a debt, or iti discharge of an obligation. Upon what principle, then, can 
the payment of (he debis of Mexico, or any of iis departments, be claim- 
ed of us? It is, at most, but the case of two creditors of a common debt- 
or, the one oblaining payment of his debt. Is he under any legal or 
moral obligation to pay the debt due to the other creditor, even though 
Jie should exhaust the properly of the debtor in obtaining his own? 
u Viffi'an/ibus nou dormicntihus favet le.r,^^ is as well a principle of morals 
as of law. The ebtablishment of the doctrine for which tiie gentleman 
contends would be eminently dangerous to ihe peace of the world. A 
national debt may be far beyond the value of its property and sovreignty. 
With such a debt a nation might commit aggressions upon it neighbors 
with comparative impunity, wiiliout the fear of being called upon to make 
indemnity. 

But ii is said the doctrine is (o be found in the laws of na- 
tions, and we have been referred to Vattel, book 2d, sec. 203, where that 



12 

writer remarks, "for a conqueror to refuse to pay the debts of a country 
which he has subduerl, would be robbing; the creditors with whoiri he is 
not at war." Now, sir, upon this, I remiuk ihat Vailel was but a com- 
mentator, and his assertion, ihough entitled to great respect, is notauthor- 
ity. It should be observed, also, that he is speaking of conquest of ter- 
ritory, without reference to rights to indemnity, or to the object for which 
the conquest is made, and his whole argurnerit is embraced in the simple 
assertion of the doctrine which 1 have quoted. But let us look for a mo- 
ment at the principle. Wliat are the laws of nations? They are the 
laws of nature applied to nations, and exhibited in the usages of modern 
civilized governments. Not all the laws of nature, but only those 7/hich 
have found a place in national usage. I need not say that we shall seek 
in vain in the laws of nature for any such liability to pay the debts of a 
government, a part of whose territory has been acquired in satisfaction 
ofanmjury. And no such usage has ever existed among natbns. I 
exclude, of course, cases of purchase of territory or sovereignly, where 
the stipulations of the contract may be infinitely various. I speak only 
of acquisition by conquest or treaty, oxho\\\^ for indemnity , ox ViS payment 
of prior indebtedness. Now, sir, I appeal to gentlemen who maintain 
this doctrine, to show us even one instance in which such a liability has 
been recognised, one precedent in tlie history of the past. Were it pos- 
sible for them to respond to the appeal, one would not constitute an usage. 
But, so far as I know, none such is to be found. Not one such exists, 
standing even in solitary loneliness, in all the records of the past. VaKei, 
indeed, in support of his position, has referred to one case as authority, 
and the honoral^le gentleman from Vermont has adverted to it for the 
same purpose. He says: 

" When Frederick the Great, of Prussia, conquered the kingdom of Silesia, the 
debts which Silesia owed to Englishmen, were demanded of him by the King of 
England, and af er some shuffling and a good deal of negotiation, he was constrain- 
ed to pay them." 

And this is the only case found to support the doctrine. But a brief 
reference to the history of the Prussian accjuision of Silesia will fhow that 
it warrants no such conclusion as has been drawn from it. Prior to the 
year 1742, Frederick II, king of Prussia, had suddenly, and without pro- 
vocation, commenced an offensive war with tlie Q,ueen of Himgaiy, and 
had overrun Upper and Lower Silesia, and a patt of Bohemia'. The 
war was continued for some time, with alternate success, when, through 
the intervention of England, the treaty of Breslau was formed, in the 
year 1742. England, at that lime, occupied a sen)i hostile position to 
Prussia. The Earl of Flynford, an Englishman, was the accredited agent 
of the dueen of Hungary in concluding the treaty. By it she caded Up- 
per and Lower Silesia to Frederick II, and, in return, acnong oilier things, 
he covenanted to pay those sums of money which London merchants had 
lent to the former emperor, and for which the revenues of Silesia had 
been specifically pledged. The tide was not obtained by conquest. No 
conquest had been made. The treaty was signed '■'■Jlngranle bello" 
while hosiiliiies were in active progress. Frederick did not even set up 
a title by conquest; all was obtainel by the treaty of Breslau, The 
liability to pay the debts was a vdlunlary one, not imposed upon Fred- 
erick as a result of his conquest, but assumed by the treaty contempora- 



13 

neoLisly with the cession of Silesia. How this can be regarded as an 
aulhoiiiy for the doctrine, whicli Vaitel assumes, no man can perceive. 
Had the engagement to pay the Enghsii debts been enieied into afier the 
cession, the case would luive been more in point. But its history shows 
that it was a mere purchase, and liie assumption of the debts a part of the 
consideration paid; anything else than the acknowledgement of a liability 
arising fiom the acquisition of territory, either by conquest or treaty, for 
the satisfaction of just claims. I feel warranted, therefore, in unequivo- 
cally denying the doctrine, iliat if we obtoin any part of Mexico, v.'e take 
with it a responsibility for her debts. The position is utterly groundless, 
sustained by no reason, supported by no precedent. 

I trust, Mr. Cluiirman, that 1 have now sulTicienily vindicated our 
right to indemnity from Mexico, and the possibility of its attainment. 
It has, however, been objected by honorable gentlemen upon the other 
side, that such lias not been the object for which the w ar has been prose- 
cuted, that such has not been ilie design of the President; (hat not- 
withsta.iding his avowals, iheie has been a paramount purpose concealed 
behind all his professions, to consult his own fame by extending our 
territorial limits, and that without regard to (he equity of measures 
by which it might be accomplished. Sir, the imputation of a mo- 
tive so unworthy shouUl not lightly be made. It can only come from 
a mind perverted by its own suspicions, and earnestly seeking food for 
jealousy. 

Yet, it is argued from the fact that, in his correspondence with 
the Mexican Commissioners, Mr. Trist declared it to be a ^^ sine qva 
nort" of peace that we should have the whole of New Mexico and (he 
California?, but vi'ere willing to pay a stipulated surn for all that tbey 
are worth beyor.d our just claims. The conclusion deduced from this 
is, that the purpose of ihe President was to compel the Mexican Govern- 
ment to sell a part of tlieir country. But it must not be forgotten, that 
indemnity in money is conceded to be impossible. Long ago Mexico 
had failed to pay (he miserable sum acknowledged by her own treaty to 
be due to us, IIow mucii less her ability now? If compensation is to 
be made in territory, (here is an obvious propriety in our claiming the 
cession of (hat which is adjacent to ours; and claiming by political 
as well as natural boundaries. And if, in so doing, more should be 
obtained than is due to an honest satisfaction for our wrongs, and we 
pay for the excess, is it less indemnity for that? Apply to it an illus- 
tration derived from an occurrence not unknown in private life. Two 
farmers own adjoining plantations. One has a just claim upon (he other 
for the redress of an injury. It is proposed (o se(t!e the diflicuhy. The 
aggressor cannot pay in money, and the injured party claims a field of 
the other, adjoining his own plantation. The value of (he field being 
beyond the extent of the injuiy, lor (he excess he engages to pay a sum 
of money. The arrangement is made. Who doubts that this is a case 
of accord and satisfaction? And why should a difTerent rule be applied 
to nadonal conduct? That which is iionest and fair between indivi- 
duals, is equally upright between nadons. The honorable Chairman of 
the Committee upon Foreign Relations (Mr. T. Smith) concedes, that 
in taking territory we must take by convenient boundaries, and that in 
thus taking, it may well be that such boundaries would reach beyond 



]4 

our precise claim for indemnily, and impose upon us the neeessity of 
paying Mexico a small sum. But the amount proposed (o be paid by 
the pending treaty, in liis opinion, gives a different cliaracier to the tians- 
aciion. I cannot, however, discover how a difference in the amount to 
be paid changes the principle, so long as it is paid for the excess beyond 
a just indemnily. Nor do we know what sum Mr. Tristwas empowered 
to offer. The treaty proposed now, is bm the offer of Mexico. It was 
also contended by the Mexican Commissionei^, that the cession of the 
territory demanded, would open their country to our attack, in the event 
of another war. If so, what better security could Mexico give, or we 
demand, agninsl future aggression ? Security as well as indeiimity is 
one of our ri^dsts, a legitimate object of the war. 1 am aware that gen- 
tlemen have effected to ridicule this suggestion of security. Such, how- 
ever, is not the light in which it has been regnrded by civilized govern- 
ments, or in the laws of nations. Vattel, in his third book, section 1(32, 
thus treats it : 

" The right to security cflcn authorizes us to punish injustice or violence. It is 
an additional p'.ea for depiiving an enemy of some part of his possessions. * * * 
With that wiew, thii'gs of value may be taken from her, such as rights, cities, prc- 
vinces.^^ 

But, Mr. Chairman, the argument upon theoiherside has assumed -.mo- 
ther form, and we are told that the conduct of the Executive was evincive 
of a design to compel Mexico !o sell a portion of her land. I think this 
has already been substantially refuted. We are, however, referred lothe 
languao^e of the Mexican Conmiissioners iti tiieir letter to Mr. 'J'rist, 
dated September G, 1847, in which tht^y call llie acts of our Govtr'mient 
" making war upon a people for no oilier reason than because it refused 
10 sell territory which iis neighbor sought to buy." And ihi?, it is said, 
has never been answered. If it never has been, it is berause it needs no 
answer. It assumes what has no foundation in fact. Wo have not l)een 
warring on ]\lex;co, because she refused to sell us territory. '^I'he argu- 
ment is but an imposing statement of a lictiiinuscase. Every one knows 
how formidable even an erroneous proposition mny appear in soirie 
forms of statement. If indemnily were offered in money, or could be 
thus obtained, the question could not arise ; btit. when, if secured at ail, 
it must be in territory, 1 ask gentlemen lo show how it is less defensi- 
ble lo rfqnire of Mexico a paiticular territoiy, paying her ail that it is 
worih beyond a just indemnity, than it vould be to compel the payment 
of similar value out of her national iieasmy? But I liave said enouuli 
respecting the ailegaiions of concealed purposes. They are all the ciea- 
lures of suspicion, baseless as a drean) ; and widi suspicion, it is impossi- 
ble to reason. It is, however, a mistake to say, that this asseition of the 
Mexican Commissioners has never been ansv/ered. The final letier of 
Mr. "i'rist, of September 7, 1847, to which I refer the Committee, reveals 
its fallacy. 

1 turn now, Mr. Chairman, to another mistaken impression, existing in 
the country, and lo some extent, in this House. Since the comuience- 
ment of the session, mitnerons menjorials have been pieseuteil. respectably 
signed, praying that Congress would adopt measures for die imme- 
diate restoraiion of peace. What those njeasures slioidd be, die memo- 
rialists do not inform us. They only ask us to do what we all desire to 



15' 

do. I do not believe there is a member of this body who does not de- 
sire to see this war brcuwht lo an early termination. On this subject 
there is perfect harmony of feehnir. But we dilTer a? to the mode in 
which this objr'ct can be accomplished. War is easily beuiin ; it requires 
but the action of one paity. Pea('e is not so readily restored. That de- 
mands the assent of both bellig-ereiit::^, not !o only its renewed existence, bnt 
to its conditioii?, and that, too, while both jartiesare exaspeialed by the- 
remembrance of iln-ir disasters, expenses, and snlFerit)f^?. The honor- 
able g-entleman fiom Vornioni,and others who have adopted his opinion?, 
have told us that peace has been at all times within onr reach, if we had 
chosen to accept it; and this is inferreii from the offer of |)eace contained 
in l\i& ^'- counter pro^ei " snbmiUed by the Mexican Conmiissioners to 
Mr. l^ist, in September last. Yes, but what were its conditions? 
IV^as if a peace wii!) indeinaiiy? \Viis it such a peace as couUI have been 
accepie<!? Siicli as woidd have been satisfactory to the honorable pfen- 
lleman hiuiself? I ihuik not. VVhiit did the coimierfiitjet of the Mex- 
ican (.'oinmi^iSiuners pr<;poc;e? Mexico did, indeed, leliiicjnish Texas,. 
between tlie S.ibine and the Nueces, but that was a reiin(|nishment'of- 
nothing t'lat v.as Ijits, of nothing' which was not aheady onr own. 
'i'rne, she ofFcrtd to cede to us a portion of her territory, at a stipulated 
piice, but she made no abiweiueiit in the price for what she was indebted 
to lis before the war, nnr for expenses i;!furred or injiirico received since 
its cotnmencetnent. This was all. And what were the conditions upon 
which even this was to he conceded, if I may call it concession? Mex- 
ico demanded in r.'inrii that we shotdd relinquish all of ^I'exas wesi of 
the Nueces, whclher our claims are rii^hi.rui or n'>t ; that weslionid assnmo 
the paynirni of the acknowledged debt due by her to our cit'zens, before- 
the disturbance of amicable relations between the \\\o nations, and all 
that which remained unsettietl ; thus, in ellect, compelbng us to pay for 
that pait of Texas wiiich lies east of the Niieces. She also demaudcti.' 
that goods in Mex'can pori« then ui our possession, aiul consequeiuly 
exempt fioni Mexican duties, (I'e'ers' Reports, Rice vs. United Suites,) 
SiionU! be minle suhjt^ct to them ; thus imposing upon us the obligaliorn- 
10 refund wluit we had already collected. And yet again she demanded 
thai the United S'ates should satisfy those Mexican citizens whose inter» 
esfs had been injuriously aflVcted by the Nordi Anierican troops; eqiiiva- 
leru. lo requiring ihat we sliould pay ail our own, and a pari of her ex- 
panses of liie uar. Truly this was a jnost extraordinary proposition. 
All acceptance of it wouh! have been an unequivocal acknowledgement 
Oiai we had been prosecuting an unjust war. Ir would have been re- 
cording our own infamy, with our own hands, by solenm treaty, upon 
the pa^es of history. 1 cannot believe that such a proposition woidd 
have received the assent of any American citizen. Mexico could never 
liave made it, nn'ess slie had labored under h;'r cherished bidlucinaiion, 
that she still owiiv.d the wliole of Texas up to the river Sabine. This 
very offer, more iluui any thing else, in my opinion, tendi to prove that 
peace has not yet been in onr power. Soinetiiing more r-^maiiied te be 
done befuro hostilities could cease, before amicable relations could bo re- 
stored !)etwoen the two countries. 

1 have thus, Mr. <:hairnKm, endeavored to show some of our rights c-n- 
sequeiit upon the ju-tice of our cause in the war, and to piove il.at 



16 



they are attainable. Much that I intended to submit to the consideration 
of the Committee my hmited time has compelled me to leave unsaid. 
In what manner those rights may be secured is not for me to determine. 
I leave that where the Constitution has placed it. Nor have I alluded 
to the (rea'y, which it is understood is now under discussion in the other 
end of the Capitol. It would ill become me to volunteer opinions res- 
pecting us terms, and I cannot but regret that the Chairman of the Com- 
mitiee on Foreign Relations, occupying as he does a most influential 
position, has thought proper to make it the object of attack. I cannot 
perceive that his strictures promise any good to the country, or tend to 
hasten the approach of that state of things which he professes to desire. 
If the treaty prove such an one as secures a just settlement of our diffi- 
culties with Mexico, and be ratified by both Governments, to no one will 
it bring greater satisfaction than to myself; but whatever may be its 
terms; if it be not such an one as can be accepted, or even if it be, and 
is yet unratified by Mexico, it furnishes an additional argument for our 
immediate adoption of these vigorous measures, which alo7ie, in my 
opinion, promise an early restoration of peace. 






"<v'^-*/ **,-'^\/ %-^--\o^ %■ 



%^^-*/ ^^,'^:^\.^' "o^^^-*/ % 







J»(l 









IffilSli! |i lln'r'S 'k' .niS:l(li';^:SrilVii7«MlS'Vi''i;?!iir4?in!i(,ili»3^^ 



